United India Insurance Company Ltd, v. Richard William @ Richard William Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.09.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and C.M.P.Nos.11746 of 2022 & 6829 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Ltd., No.134, Silingi Buildings, 4th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai -6.
... Appellant
Versus
1.Richard William @ Richard William Mathew 2.P.Manikandan ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3108 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Court No.2, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran For R1 : Mr.P.Keerthi Varman
JUDGMENT
The appellant/Insurance Company had preferred the instant appeal seeking reduction of compensation to the 1st respondent herein. 2.The 1st respondent herein filed the claim petition stating that on 01.05.2014 at about 00.15 hrs, while he was riding his motorcycle on a public road, a lorry insured with the 2nd respondent came in a rash and 1/8
negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle; that as a result of which, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries; and that hence, the 1st respondent was entitled for compensation. 3.The 2nd respondent - owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
4.The appellant filed a counter stating that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent; that in any case, the compensation claimed by the 1st respondent was excessive and hence prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 on his side. The appellant neither examined any witness nor marked any document. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1. 6.The Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident took place due to the 2/8
negligence of the driver of the lorry insured with the appellant and directed the appellant to pay the compensation of Rs.14,21,700/- to the 1st respondent.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1st respondent had admitted in his cross-examination that he was working as a Chef in a Five Star Hotel and he rejoined duty eight months after the accident; that the award of the Tribunal by adopting multiplier method is not warranted as the 1st respondent did not suffer any functional disability and hence, prayed for reduction of compensation. 8.Since the 2nd respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission of this Court to dispense with notice to the 2nd respondent and he had also made an endorsement to that effect. Hence, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.
9.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Considering the nature of 3/8
injuries suffered by the 1st respondent, the Tribunal had rightly adopted multiplier method and awarded compensation and hence, no interference is called for and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 10.The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 11.On perusal of the records and on hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that the 1st respondent had suffered fracture in his right ankle and his right great toe was amputated. The Medical Board had assessed the disability of the 1st respondent as 40%. Considering the fact that the appellant is able to pursue his job after the accident, this Court is of the view that the functional disability assessed by the Tribunal at 40% is excessive.
Even though the appellant is able to pursue his job, this Court is of the view that he would have certainly suffered functional disability to an extent.
can be assessed at 20% The notional income fixed by the Tribunal and the compensation awarded under other heads is just and reasonable and the same are confirmed. Hence, the compensation under the head disability is calculated as follows :- Rs.12,000 X 12 X 17 X 20/100 = Rs.4,89,600/- Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified as follows:- S.
No Description Amount awarded by Tribunal (Rs) Amount awarded by this Court (Rs) Award confirmed or enhanced or granted 1.
Disability 9,79,200 4,89,600 Reduced 2.
Pain and Suffering 50,000 50,000 Confirmed 3.
Loss of Income 60,000 60,000 Confirmed 4.
Transportation 15,000 15,000 Confirmed 5.
Extra Nourishment 35,000 35,000 Confirmed 6.
Damages of clothes 1,000 1,000 Confirmed 7.
Medical Expenses 2,01,500 2,01,500 Confirmed 8.
Mental Agony 10,000 10,000 Confirmed 9.
Loss of Estate 30,000 30,000 Confirmed 10.
Attender charges 15,000 15,000 Confirmed 11.
Future Medical Expenses 25,000 25,000 Confirmed Total 14,21,700 9,32,100 Reduced by Rs.4,89,600/- 5/8
12.With the above modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.14,21,700- is hereby reduced to Rs.9,32,100/-, together with interest at 7.5% per annum (excluding the default period, if any) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount now determined by this Court along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of four
(4) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount now determined by this Court, along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn. The appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the excess amount lying in the deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3108 of 2014, if the entire award amount has already been deposited by them. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.09.2023 rst Index: Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order 6/8
To:
1.The Special Subordinate Judge No.2, The Motor Vehicle Accident Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
7/8
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
rst and C.M.P.Nos.11746 of 2022 & 6829 of 2023 25.09.2023 8/8